Talk:Susya/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Materials

Relevant sources for this article:

Expropriated

Sources (UN/Amnesty/B'tselem, plus RS books and articles) give 'confiscated/expropriated'. One can vary the term according to taste. Whatever, these matters are not 'allegations'. The land was under Palestinian management until the government and the IDF seized it, and then turned it over to settlement, as documented. I will provide greater details and complete refs presently. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources are in the article - the cite I removed was to a claim by an activist (Shulman), and the new cite added is to a partisan group. Perhaps there are court rulings that establish that the land was owned by Palestinians- please provide those. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Shulman is an academic, with a major work on the area, and in saying he an activist and nothing else, you are reducing his credentials to those of a peacenik, or partisan. Academics are peer-reviewed. He doesn't 'allege', he states the area's history. With this method, everythiong quoted from an academic source you dislike becomes an 'allegation'. Put 'according to D Shulman, if you like. As for the Jerusalem Research Group, it is financed by the European Economic Community among others, and doesn't make allegations. It is a notable and sophisticated research group. I'm building the article. Wait for me to finish and then challenge it. Your edit just wiped out, in an edit conflict, a full paragraph of work on the ancient history I had written. You couldn't know that, but give me the courtesy of a break and a breather until I can establish some shape to the page. In the meantime, study the area, its history and sources. It is not Shulman claiming this. See here, and then click through and read the sources cited.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Shulman's academic expertise is in Dravidian languages, and has no bearing whatsoever on his claims regarding Susya, which were made in a partisan rag (a self-described "muckracking newsletter"), in his capacity as a pro-Palestinian activist. Needless to say, those claims were not peer-reviewed, not academic, and are nothing more than allegations by several activists. The ARIJ is indeed financed by the EEC, which takes care to make it very explicit that "The views expressed herein are those of the beneficiary and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the Commission." - the views of ARIJ are theirs, and theirs alone, as those of a pro-Palestinian partisan lobbying group. You claimed there are court findings that establish the veracity of these allegations - if so, please produce them. Until then, they are properly labeled as allegations by partisans, especially when the partisan sources themselves admit the opposing view - that the land is "State Land", and that the Israeli Supreme Court has found the dwellers to be squatters.
As a side note, you will find it much easier to work collaboratively with other editors if you stop constantly preaching to them in a condescending manner. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Look. Go to it. Since your curiosity has been attracted to Susya, I'm quite happy to see how you can build up the article without my condescension. I lost about 30 lines on antiquity in that edit clash, 3 hours work. The first thing to do is to check out the details as to why the Government's naming commission decided to call it Susya, with input from Gush Emunim, and Moshe Levinger sidekick Bentzion Heinemann, which founded the settlement. Your last edit, 'containing the remains of ancient Susya' shows that you are editing a page you know nothing about. That this site corresponds to an ancient 'Susya' is an hypothesis, probably a fiction, not a reality. Bye.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Again with the condescension? When you stop telling editors they "know nothing about" the articles they are writing, you will get more useful work done. If you can't do this, please find another hobby. I'd be happy to instruct you on how to avoid losing your work due to edit conflicts, but your harassing attitude makes it very difficult. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'Shulman's academic expertise is in Dravidian languages, and has no bearing whatsoever on his claims regarding Susya,'

There was the signal again, which told me a labour of love in building a full page would turn out into another battle through bad sources (Meyer), contested 'POV', with no serious work being done on the other side but simply the political control on text. Your remark is verbatim, straight from the maestro's remarks, duly memorized, on the Israeli Settlements page. Neither you nor User:Jayjg seem to know that Shulman's first degree and thesis at Hebrew University was in Arabic. He was an Israeli Arabist before becoming a scholar of Indian languages. I'm sick and tired of this nonsense of having to explain simple things endlessly, when wikilawyers start to jump on a sketch of an article, challenge 'confiscate','expropriation', put in 'allegations by peace activists' to gloss scholarly comments, cite books on the Galilee for information on the Southern Hebron hills (3 words in a footnote on the Galilee mentioning Horvat Susya do not constitute a useful source). I've been through this too many times, and I am absolutely sick of it. You've won.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears you are simply incapable of working in a collegial manner, as every single post of yours is condescending, uncivil, and bordering on personal attacks.
Shulman's first degree (in History, incidentally, not Arabic) has no relevance to the land ownership allegations in Susya, and his claims regarding the latter, made in an far-left partisan rag, described by its own editors as a "muckracking newsletter" has no academic credentials - it is a source that should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone for a contentious claim. That you persist in referring to this as "scholarly comments" reflects badly on you, and suggest that you do not understand the concept of a scholarly publication.
Eric Meyers, whose name you could not even get right, a professor of Archaeology at Duke University, the editor of The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, is, according to you a "bad source", because a well-sourced and non-contentious statement about an archaeological finding in Susya came from a compilation of academic papers which he edited, published by an academic publisher specializing ancient Near East and biblical studies, whose main topic was the Galilee. And in the same breath you advocate for inclusion of a contentious statement from a political activist, published in an openly partisan political rag. Perhaps once you get your standards to be a little consistent we will be able to continue this debate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are trying to make me spend several hours, is it days?, wasting my time by correcting on a talk page your inventions, and stopping me from building an article.
For the record

Shulman's first degree (in History, incidentally, not Arabic)

  • Wikilawyering. His first degree was in Islamic History, with a major in Arabic language and literature. Typically you look at 'History' ignore 'Islamic' and 'Arabic' in order to equivocate. You erred on Dravidian, and, when corrected, saved face by saying his BA was in history, and now have to wipe it again, because the BA was in Islamic history, with an Arabic major. Of such fatuous threads of trivial correction are talk pages made. Doing this is, I have long assumed, part of the technique used to waste editors' time.

'land ownership allegations in Susya'

Just a bad faith assertion, evidently you don't even read up on Susya.
  • Wikilawyering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Counterpunch is not a 'far left partisan rag'. Were it so, it would not host so many ex-Wall Street economists, ex-Reagan administration undersecretaries, ex-Knesset politicians, ex-CIA operatives, etc., on its pages. Those who know it call it an anarchic-libertarian (libertarian means radical, and rightwing). One of it editors shares many views you would find held by the Cato Institute. Shulman and Neve Gordon and Ehud Krinis are all published Israeli academics. It matters not a whit whether their article is sourced to Counterpunch, since they are prominent Israeli academics with a published academic record in the area of West Bank settlement studies.
  • Where did I say Eric Meyers was a 'bad source'?. Again you are misreading for strategic advantage. You put in Meyers' book, Galilee through the Centuries to source the archeology of Susya in the far south, which is well-documented. Well what does Meyers have to say? On page 179 his text dealing with Sepphoris runs:

These objects appear ..on a series of mosaic floors belonging to Jewish (note 4) and Samaritan synagogues.

We go and check note 4 and find 'They include the synagogues of Beth Alpha, Beth Yerah, Gerasa, Hammath Tiberias, Hulda, Isfiya, and Horvat Susya.'
  • So, and only pre-college students need to be told this, but your use of Meyers's book for the mosaic pavement at Susya is bad. Since you blundered, I said Meyer's book (Meyer) was a bad source for Susya, and provided the detailed Oxford guide footnote to replace it. Now you equivocate and draw in Meyer's credentials. This is only bad faith, deliberate wikilawyering, or an attempt to waste my time in elucidating things that any high school student should know. You don't quote irrelevant sources that happen to drop a word or name dealing with the subject at hand and get anything less than a -G grading on your paper. It's like quoting Pear's Encyclopedia on quantum theory.
I'm not going to continue this debate. I know what the game is. Make me waste so much time on the talk page, as tonight, that I'll be too exhausted to finish the page. I've a long record on wiki for interest in the Hebron area, and editing on it, so it is natural that I turned my attention to this stub. You show up (I expected someone to show up). Well, as on other occasions, I defer to the drifter-in. If you are seriously interested in, and informed on Susya and the area, you can convert the stub into an article on your own. You surely aren't here just because I am, and therefore you're welcome to take the burden off my shoulders, research it as I did over these last weeks, and write the article. Go ahead. No edit war, no condescension, it should be a breeze.Remember we're here to write articles, not to kibitz on people who write articles. This is my last comment. If you don't go ahead and substantially enrich the article on your own with some thoroughness, arbitrators ort administrators can make their own conclusions as to why you chose to come here in the first place, since you evidently know nothing of Susya.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Until then, they are properly labeled as allegations by partisans, especially when the partisan sources themselves admit the opposing view - that the land is "State Land", and that the Israeli Supreme Court has found the dwellers to be squatters.

Don't forget to add things like the fact that it's not State Land, according to the ICJ opinion 2004, which overrides anything a court in Israel, which is a foreign occupier of the West Bank, may say. And note while editing on the section 'land disputes' things like this, one of many accounts of what the High Court rules, family by family.

'On the dispossession of the Hushiya family’s land between Susya and Mitzpeh Yair from 2000 who were ‘prevented from accessing their lands by army-backed violent attacks of settlers. The ‘ban’ became permanent in 2005. At one point, some of the family members were shot at and one person has never fully recovered. In 2007, a settler from Susya named Moshe Deutsche who is known for cursing RHR staff and volunteers as « Nazis » « Satan, » etc., began to plant hundreds of grape vines across the road from the Susya settlement on part of a 110-dunam plot belonging to the family. He began to plow and otherwise prepare additional lands for cultivation. The family turned to RHR. Law enforcement authorities can force trespassers of the lands they have taken over without going to court- if they do so within ninety days. We, therefore, quickly and urgently appealed to the police and the legal advisor for the Occupied Territories. These officials maintained that they were investigating the situation, but time was passing by and the limit was almost up. RHR appealed to Israel’s High Court to compel the authorities to enforce the law. In what seemed like a miracle, the authorities ruled that all of the land other than the vineyard belonged to the Hushiya family even before the court heard the case. (A separate hearing ruled the vineyard was to be off-limits to all parties until ownership was resolved, except that Deutsch could send in foreign workers to do limited maintenance). Given the history of settler violence, the army issued an order forbidding Israelis to enter. With out prodding,, the army has on several occasions guarded the family when they requested protection, working their lands., thee cultivation of which they had been denied for five years. It was a very emotional moment to see the two ninety-year.old patriarchs of the family returning to their land. Moshe Deutsche did everything he could to prevent the work that day, and every time the family has come to work their land. Unfortunately, this was not the end of the story. Deutsche appealed to the High Court against the State, RHR and the family in November 2007 for having allowe3d the family to access their land, calling on the court to prevent the family from having such access. In the meantime, the Civil Administration ruled that the planted area also belongs to the Hushiya family, and that Deutsch must uproot his grape vines and abandon the land. In February 2008, Deutsch again appealed against the Palestinians and the Civil Administration, arguing that he had been working the land for 12 years and that therefore it was his. This legal move has meanwhile prevented the family from regaining the planted land. We are waiting for the results of both appeals. … Recently, a new battalion commander in the area hasd been closing his eyes as settlers enter the area forbidden to them and attack shepherds tending the family flocks. The army hjas not provided protection and has even arrested international volunteers sent in by us so that we ourselves would not violate the prohibition against Israelis entering the area.

RHR attorney Kamar Misharki-Asad writes : ‘The behaviour of this settler is only one example of a much wider phenomenon spreading through the Werst Bank. Violent settlers use threats and intimidation to prevent Palestinians from accessing their lands, with the direct or indirect backing of the army. After the land has been « cleansed » of its owners who are prevented access every time they attempt to get their lands,. Palestinians have for all practical purposes been forcibly expelled from their lands. Settlers take advantage of this vacuum to trespass and take over Palestinian lands. They begin to plough and plant, or even set up hothouses. Ironically, the settlers argue that the land belongs to them and not to Palestinians because of Turkish laws (also found in the Jewish Tradition-A.A.) granting ownership to those who work the land for a given period of time. This misguided interpretation is given full weight by the police and ignores that the acts of trepassing and violence by the settlers themselves that allow them to work the land while forcing the Palestinians to keep away. In many cases, the police refuse to enforce the law despite their obligations, even when the Palestinians present all of their ownership documents.’ This story is not yet ended, nor is it the only case in the region when we are being sued for a decision made by the State ! However, within the context of Occupation, we must act with the same « irrational « investment of resources as do those who invest a greater amount of time and money to take over the land. If not, we will only be able to watch as the land disappears.’ Rabbis for Human Rights Volume XVIII - September 2008 Pp pp.17-18Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to some well deserved vacation on a nice Caribbean beach, so I don;t have time to respond in detail just now. I will make one comment though: No one is forcing you to spend any time wikilawyering on this talk page, or making personal attacks on it- it is your choice to do so. You could instead spend the time improving the article, by finding those court rulings you have alluded to, which prove the veracity of Shulman's allegations. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I look forward to your edits on the Antilles and the Bahamas. First hand experience of a subject-matter does wonders.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of establishment

The UN report is ultra RS. The susya.net. source is not an RS. It is the homepage, in a foreign language, maintained by the settlers, i.e., the word of an interested party. So CM's attempt to elide the former in favour of the latter is dubious in terms of policy. Secondly, putting the Hebrew dating system is inappropriate. Thirdly, the edit summary justifying the elision of the UN RS, is partial. The UN annex reads:-

ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF THE WEST BANK

CM left out the first part, established and selectively gave the second part, italicized, as reason for suppressing the UN document. His edit also ignored that the UN gave a precise date in its annex. May 1983. I have been reasonable not questioning the right of the moshav homepage to its version (apart from the fact I am only at the beginning of editing the history of this section). To suppress the UN version is simply to play, in wikipedia, spokesman and praetorian guard for a self-promoting web page of nondescript value in terms of RS. Don't do it again.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There's really no need to turn every minor detail into an edit war, and there's no real mystery or controversy surrounding the date of establishment of the new community. It is September 1983, according to both Palestinian sources (which, incidentally, you added to the article) as well as to the official site of the community, which is a reliable source for facts about itself, such as the date it was established. The UN source you keep citing as a "differing" source actually does not say otherwise, the May date it gives is for when the settlement was "IN TE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED", ie., not yet established. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The moshav webpage (given its highly ideological character, want RS on this?) is not an RS for historical detail. From the beginning there has been a conflict in sources. The history of the settlement is complex, and I am retaining the two dates because the UN source happens to be of higher RS value than the Palestinian source (which in turn is of higher value than the susiya.net source). The May date given refers to settlements 'established 'or in the process of being established. As an editorial principle, one retains what reliable sources say until the disparity between them is overcome by some tertiary source whose authority decides the question. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The Moshav page is no more 'highly ideological' than the UN committee. I again suggest you take it to the WP:RSN noticeboard if you think your argument has merit. The UN source gives a list of "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" which means we don't know if the date there is for when the Moshav was established, or 'IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED'. Since we have two other sources that are more precise on this question (and which happen to agree on the date, even though they come from completely opposing political POVs), there no need to use the UN source, which is useless for this purpose. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What's your game CM, trying to get me sanctioned for a 3RR violation, because I insist that your repeated editwarring to remove the highest quality RS on the section is a violation of wiki policy. I can see no other motive here. Your editing insists on giving a non-RS source, a virtual webpage blog, higher RS rating than a UN document. I fail to understand your warring persistence in preferring poor to quality sources. These pages are edited over time, not overnight. My record here is clear. Your record, as contributor so far, is near to zilch.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The only game-playing that is going on here seems to be coming from your end, as you insist on turning every edit I make on this page, including trivial non-contentious issues like the date of the establishment of the modern settlement, into some huge point of contention, apparently due to some personal issue you have with me.
We have two sources, one pro-Palestinian, one pro-Settler, which both agree that the date is September. We have a third source that gives a date of May as the time when the settlement was either "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - we don't know which is which. So we could turn this non-contentious issue into a cumbersome sentence that implies some mystery or controversy, and reads something like "According to both Palestinian sources and Israeli sources, it was established in September", but a UN document gives a date of May for when it was 'ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - or we could edit the article in an encyclopedic manner, and state it was established in September, which is what the sources say, and give one or two reference for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, this seems like a tiny point to make a fuss about, and CM is correct that the UN document, whatever its provenance, doesn't give a specific date as to when the settlement actually started... and really, who cares? IronDuke 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The UN document gives the day 1983 May. I didn't create this absurd havoc, nor make a fuss. I am correcting the POV elision of an RS. Aby Warburg said famously, 'God is in the details'. We are writing an encyclopedia, and if detail is fuss, then we should are here on false pretences.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
CM is correct in that the UN document doesn't say whether the village was established or in the process of being established, on the given date. Other sources are more precise. According to Immanuel HaReuveni, a prominent Israeli geographer, Susya was started in 1982 and the residents moved in in 1983 (doesn't say what month). Therefore, it can be added that the village's established process started in 1982 and was completed in September 1983, which seems to be as accurate a picture as we get from the various sources. --Ynhockey (Talk) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
All three of you are wrong, and this is block judgement. I found the UN date in sources. Canadian Monkey first added the susya.net source, giving September. At this state of the play, I had an official document, specifically registerinng West Bank developments, published by the specific UN agency monitoring settler activities on the West Bank, giving May, and the September date.
If you examine Canadian Monkey's monkeying with this, he (a) eliminated the UN source giving may while (b) giving the susya net source, which in anycase is an unreliable source, since it is a self-promoting website by a moshav with some notoriety in the world.
What did I do? I noted the September source from the moshav website was unreliable, but knowing the alternative date does exist, left it there, with the UN source. For in principle strong reliable sources should not be deleted and replaced with poor sources, and, there is no harm in keeping the alternative dates since (c) they may very well refer to different moments in the establishment of the moshav (fencing in, expropriation, first building, caravans, or first settled habitation etc.etc).
CM then read what he calls a 'pro-Palestinian' source which he uses to justify his elimination of the UN document. He's happier having two partisan accounts which appear to balance each other and confluesce in their data, than having a third external source which disagrees with both. Bad practice.
Who really cares, I am asked? I do, and I have worked hardest on the article to get details precisely sourced from the best literature, and if I find a conflict, I don't make a personal judgement according to what I personally prefer, I retain all available information until I or some other editor establishes with indisputable clarity which source gets things right on what details. This, gentlemen, is what editing towards an encyclopedic end. All I see in Canadian Monkey's behaviour is work to ensure the moshav's point of view is secured, even at the cost of contesting what external international bodies say.
One cannot equivocate, as he did, on 'established' as equivalent to 'in the process of establishment'.
I haven't warred on POV. I have warred to retain alternative information that happens to come from the UN authority monitoring the West Bank settlements, while CM has consistently edited to suppress it. That is suppression of a high quality alternative source, and is unconscionable. It is unnecessary because adding 'May' to or 'September' saves the phenomena, while retaining the best available source do date.
Ynhockey is correct about 1982, which I was also familiar with from my files. I have a large file on Susya, and precisely because information from various sources is ragged, I edit point by point to get the whole picture in, not to push some line. Last night's idiocy should not be repeated. Nothing is lost by retaining at the drafting stage all reliable sources. Much may be lost by priviliging partisan sources at their expense. It's a matter of principle.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The UN date is useless, because it refers to an undefined/unknown event: "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - i.e, we don't know if May is the date when it was 'ESTABLISHED', or if May is the date it was 'IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED' - and we further have no idea what "IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" means. We have 2 other sources that provide a precise date, September, for when it was actually established - there's no reason not to use that, or to artificially create imprecision where non exists. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This is wikilawyering. You don't challenge reliable sources because they don't answer the questions you might think of. The source says MAY 1983. It is reliable, therefore it is added, whatever an editor's private opinion may be.
It is not wikilwayering to note that the source you want to use does not actually say what you claim for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Nishidani, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice game,set match, Canadian Monkey, Ynhockey, IronDuke, and now NoCal. I can accept 3 against one, but no intelligent editing can be done on a page with NoCal100 there. His only function, as far as I have seen, is to push good editors over the top and get them subject to incremental sanctions. Of all of the obscure articles in wikipedia, all of a sudden there is intense fascination about this rare little islet, and I find, having built it, just after I'd done the history of the Jewish synagogue, that it will be 4 against 1, if I try to give the history of the Palestinian Susya. Nice work. I'm checkmated by a numbers game. And nothing in the air at Arbcom will stop this collectivist editing, for they have no remedy for it. I don't believe in coincidences. I do read events contextually. It's decision time at Arbcom, and this nice little collective frustration of my obvious edit has its uses. Will he go overboard, will he make personal attacks, can 'we rush up a referrel to arbitration for some infraction. I suppose this is enough. Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As Ynhockey notes above, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed at this juncture is an RfC asking which source should be used? Who is willing to open it to break this deadlock? Tiamuttalk 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a bold edit here [1] as part the WP:BRD. Feel free to revert. But I suggest that whoever reverts, opens an RfC so as to get wider community input on this issue. Tiamuttalk 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a reasonable solution, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Let's see... the stuff restored consists of:

  1. One deleted image
  2. A series of spelling mistakes
  3. Removal of a template
  4. Restoration of a promotional link only vaguely related to Susya
  5. Restoration of a controversial paragraph sourced to a blog
  6. Restoration of a paragraph sourced to a page that doesn't support its content

Please state how any of these are appropriate. The original edit by Anon was pure vandalism from all points of view. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please refactor the heading here? I'm sure you are aware of WP:TALK, which frowns upon using your fellow editor's names in talk headings.
I removed the image and restored the template (points 1 and 3). Thanks for pointing that out. I had missed those changes in my revert of your edit.
I assume by "spelling mistakes", you are referring to your changes of "Susya" to "Susia"? Per the MoS, I thought we were supposed to use the spelling used in the article title, which is why I didn't think reverting those changes was a problem. If it is, and you have another rationale for their use, please do elaborate.
The rest of descriptions are very far off base. The material is adequately sourced and where it was not I added other sources. When you want to discuss in more accurate and less polemical terms, I am ready. Tiamuttalk 17:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the talk heading per your request. Thank you for making some of the necessary fixes, and indeed I misread about Susya vs. Susia (thought that the Anon wrote Susia, I guess it was the opposite).
However, there is still a problem with the part about the settlers. You are actually citing this WP:REDFLAG claim to a blog and a book by an Indologist-turned-peace-activist. That doesn't seem like exceptional sourcing, and in fact, it's not even reliable sourcing. Shulman is no more a reliable source on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict than, for example, Moshe Feiglin, who also wrote at least one book on the subject. Moreover, the book source you cited doesn't even support the claim; it merely retells a personal account of an event in 2005, mostly about a specific incident. This is quite far from the libelous claim that "The settlers regularly harass their Palestinian neighbours, uprooting their olive trees, shooting their sheep and threatening the citizens. They are often supported in this by the Israeli army." —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Shall we rephrase and attribute to Shulman then? Tiamuttalk 08:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's significantly trimmed (per WP:UNDUE) and supported by the source, I am fine with that. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

There were a number of changes to the infobox. Some of these are good, such as using the standard settlement infobox instead. Some of these are however not good. Here are the issues with the infobox as it stood before my edit:

  1. The pushpin map was the Israel map which has as its alt text Susya is located in Israel. This is plainly incorrect as Susya is not in Israel.
  2. The district is named "Judea and Samaria". The WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) stipulate that the "Area" must be included. Also, as a result of those naming conventions and the discussions involved in setting them up, it was determined that when the infobox contains "Judea and Samaria Area" as the district the infobox must also include "West Bank" as the region. Code was inserted in the Israel specific infobox to ensure that happened. Here I just added it as a separate field
  3. The coordinates region is given as IL (Israel) when the location is actually in the Palestinian territories.

nableezy - 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The village is not in the 'Palestinian Territories' and saying so is misleading. It is Israeli, and not under any Arab control. --Shuki (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a demonstrably false statement. Susya is in the West Bank which is a part of the Palestinian territories. Your warped view as to what the "Palestinian territories" encompasses has no basis in the sources or reality. nableezy - 19:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, the infobox should be changed back. If there's a problem with the map, that can be addressed separately. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? nableezy - 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
For one, the global format has Hebrew display problems, and is much more complicated for the regular user to understand. Secondly, we should be consistent in infobox use and it's a problem if some localities have one kind of infobox and others have another. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware of any language display issues, but that should be easily solved by using the {{rtl-lang}} template for any Hebrew or Arabic script. I agree there should consistency, but I dont see anything in the Israel-specific template, besides the color or the title bar, that can't be duplicated in the standard template. In fact, if we want consistency, we should be standardizing the template as much as we can, for both Israeli localities and for other localities in Palestine or Egypt or Ghana. There are some things, like the depopulated villages infobox, that has things that would be difficult to translate into the standard template, but I dont see how that is the case here. nableezy - 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that you aren't seeing the problem of complication, as a long-time Wikipedian. Imagine what it's like for a new user to learn either template. The global one has a gazillion fields, no one can possibly learn them all by heart and understand their quirks. While you are correct that the technical issues can be fixed, the reverse is true as well—there's nothing in the global template that can't be ported into the Israel-specific one. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont think a new user would be able to figure out either one without reading the documentation. They would have no idea was "js" means in the region, or what "pushpin_map" means. The point is that there should be a consistent infobox across all human settlements so far as is possible. I dont really care though. nableezy - 22:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Women Monastics

The article contained about 5 references to Medieval Women Monastics by Miriam Schmitt (Editor), Linda Kulzer (Editor), Mary Michael Kaliher (Illustrator), published by The Liturgical Press (1 January 1996). This book has no connection at all, whatsoever, with Susya! Someone has used this book falsely to reference otherwise valid information. Benqish (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Subdivision type in the infobox

Um. Palestinian Susya does not come under District of Israel, neither does the Judea and Samaria Area. Someone who understands these things must include in this section the Hebron Governorate. while fixing the suggestion this is a distinct of Israel, which by definition it is not.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of sources

Brewcrewer, I'm sure you are already aware of this, but to review. WP:RS says that a source is either reliable because of who published it, or because of the expertise of the authors. Are you going to claim that Neve Gordon, writer of a book on the Israeli occupation published by the University of California Press, or David Dean Shulman, writer of a book which, in part, is about his experience in Susya published by University of Chicago Press and author of reviews published in places such as the New York Review of Books, are not reliable sources? If not, revert this edit. nableezy - 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Review the edit summary. The sentence has two other better sources saying the same thing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I read the edit summary. You claimed a piece authored by Shulman and Gordon is not reliable source. Why? nableezy - 16:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
There are two other sources cited at the end of the sentence one of which is by the author removed in the third source. If anyone reasonable is of the opinion that the third source is necessary, we'll deal with whether its an RS. Until then the issue is moot save for creating a contentious talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Im sorry, but you claimed that a piece authored by Gordon and Shulman is not a reliable source. Do you stand by that claim? If so, why? If not, why did you remove it on the grounds that it is an unreliable source? nableezy - 16:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For consideration

User:Brewcrewer removed

In so far as they live in Area C, under Israel martial law, Palestinians cannot dig deeper than 3 feet for well-water unless they obtain a permit.Patrick Strickland,'Susiya: Another Casualty of Israeli Occupation?,' at Counterpunch, 19 June, 2012.

On the grounds Strickland isn't RS. He may have a point technically, though what Strickland says happens to be true. Of course, we aren't interested in the truth. But to verify just read (and any one of a dozen books on water policy there), for example, Robert Fisk, who writes:

no Palestinian can dig a hole more than 40cm below the ground.

‘In the West Bank's stony hills, Palestine is slowly dying,’ Independent, 30 January 2010. I guess stuff like that just makes one's day, esp. if you can get it out of sight. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an opinion piece in Ynet by Nasser Nawajeh, the "resident of Susiya and longtime activist" mentioned in the article for interest.(original, +972blog translation) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec) This diatribe op-ed by someone whose reliability is mocked is not much better. If you were interested in the truth you may want to find a source that says no one, including Jews, can randomly dig holes in a ground full of ancient archeological treasures (which Nablezy removed). I guess stuff like that just makes one's day.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, thats just funny. Palestinians cannot dig a hole in the ground anywhere in Area C without a permit, a permit that is almost never issued, see for example here or here. Military orders require a permit to dig any hole deeper than a defined limit. Settlers are not governed under the military regime, but you already know that. An IP made a completely bogus assertion that this is due to priceless antiquities and that it applies to everybody. That is a straight forward lie. Jews in settlements, hell in outposts, dig to their heart's content. And if you would like to challenge Fisk's reliability, which would be fun to watch, RS/N is thataway nableezy - 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If you think that unlike Arabs, Jews, are allowed to dig as they please in an area replete with archeological sites you are reading too much polemical crap. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not say that. What I said is that settlers in the West Bank, and Israeli Jews in Israel, do not require a permit to dig a well, as Palestinians in Area C do. What your new friend put in the article was a straight forward lie. To claim that concern for "archaeological sites" is the cause for this requirement is likewise pure nonsense. Please take care not repeat garbage as though it were fact. Thank you. nableezy - 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Brewcrewer. Could you kindly desist from insinuating that a description of an institutional practice by Israel on territory it occupies has something invariably to do with 'Jews'. This has absolutely nothing to do with Jews. It's called poisoning the well.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Attribution to Amira Hass

In this edit Nableezy removed a relatively harmless attribution to Amira Hass. According to her Wikipedia page it appears as if Hass was convicted of defamation in connection with her reporting on Jews living in Judea and Samaria. Taking that into account it would appear that, at the very least, we whould attribute to her any claims she makes about such Jews. Thoughts? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Where, or when, is Judea and Samaria? And no, Amira Hass, writing in Haaretz, is a reliable source. nableezy - 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice strawman. The issue is whether an attribution should be removed not whether its an RS. Please respond to the point raised.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why would a reliable source that has no other sources disputing what it reports need attribution? When did that become the practice here? Because there are any number of things, including a large number of things you have written, that need attribution to a specific author if that is the case. Amira Hass, and Haaretz behind her, are reliable sources for fact. This is not a "view" that needs attribution, this is not something that any other reliable source disputes. So no, there is no need for attribution. Now you respond to the below, as you seem to be adding attribution for undisputed facts, though you are only doing so for facts that you would dislike having in an article. nableezy - 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Putting aside the first half of your comment, you're ordering me to respond to a comment you made 13 minutes ago while personally attacking me? Keep on refreshing your watchlist and wait patiently.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You told me to respond to you. I did. Now I am asking you to respond to me. Thats how a talk page works. If you refuse, then I assume you have no valid reason for that disruptive edit and as such have your consent to remove the unneeded attribution. Thank you for your cooperation. (and where on Earth are you seeing a personal attack???) nableezy - 16:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And now Levy. Please explain this edit, as it has the distinction of attributing to Levy what Shulman also reports (and is cited for) as well as containing an explicit attribution for a piece published by a reliable source (this is not an op-ed). nableezy - 16:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I had zero objections when I wrote singlehandedly the sections on Susya's Jewish heritage. Where were you? Waiting for the Palestinian side to be mentioned so you could get grumpy? I expect reasonable standards, but not this kind of consistent challenging to sources that no one has worried about. Ta'ayush is certainly a respectable source. I could make a mess of roughly 1,000 Israeli pages in a week if I did what you are doing here, Brewcrewer, since most use sources that would never pass an RS test. I don't, and none of us here intrude and fuss, and moan about poor sourcing there because that kind of game, which you play on I/P articles, is pointless, somewhat vicious and anti-encyclopedic. Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regavim

What is the basis to call Regavim a "settler" NGO instead of an "Israeli" NGO? David Shulman's blog isn't RS for facts, and the German source calls them "Zionist". And they say they are located in Israel http://regavim.org.il/en/about-regavim/. Sean Hoyland, please self-revert.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Regavim is of course a settler organization, "subsidized by the settlers' regional municipalities in the territories" [2]. On the other hand, you are right that the German source doesn't call them that and I'm not sure if the presence or absence of the description in the article makes much difference. Zerotalk 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No, because it is not "inaccurate". If you would prefer to change it to "settler association Regavim" from the Haaretz source here, feel free. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Whereas this source [3] has them as Israeli, and this [4] calls Regavim a "nongovernmental group that combats illegal Palestinian construction". I don't think the latter is preferable, is it? I agree with Zero0000 that no description would be better. The place to hash this out would be on the (non-existent) Regavim article page.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Since there is no Regavim article, a description of some kind is necessary. Which of the various descriptions or combined descriptions is the most precise and informative for the reader ? Israeli is imprecise. [Israeli] [pro]-settler association/NGO is more precise and informative. Including "that combats illegal Palestinian construction" is fine by me as long as it's clear whose law is being referred to. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think "Israeli pro-settler association" is sufficient for here. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll just comment. Euphemisms are part of the game. We mention the Civil Administration and are supposed to image a 'civil' Israeli authority acting in defence of some statuary laws applicable to Israel. In fact, it is an orwellianism coined by Ariel Sharon to camouflage the fact that the 'Civil Administration' is an arm of the Defence Ministry and is an organ that supervises the occupation and usurpation of indigenous land rights. I think editors should start to examine whether a defining epithet is required there as well, to clarify that it is, despite the name, not 'civil' but 'military'. So too with Regavim. 'pro-settler' and NGO are euphemisms. The actual documented function of the organization is one of using the Israeli court system to expel Palestinians from their land. They do not work on behalf of settlers ('pro-sttler'), except in weighing it to stop demolition of outposts,: they assist settlers incidentally, by presenting writs and suits in order to undermine Palestinian territorial claims. It is not therefore 'pro-settler' but 'anti-Palestinian'. Their head Rabbi Yehuda Eliyahu is a settler, so is its main snooper, its director Ovad Arad, the whole thing is run by settlers. Its funding reportedly comes from Hakeren Le'atzmaut Yisrael, privately run by a Psagot settler, Nachman Eyal, and local West Bank settlement councils who refunnel them with money they obtain from the Israeli government for settlement exigencies, a kind of activist tax. It has clearly defined political links with rightwing political parties. When I'll get back I'll write the Regavim article, but I suggest that these issues be determined by neutral source-based usage, with great care taken not, as with civil administration, to adopt a euphemism that tacitly embodies a POV, nothing else. What distinguishes it is not that it is 'Israeli' but that it is a settler-run and funded private organization whose leaders and operatives work out of the West Bank. 'Israeli' thus points the readers' eyes outside the actual locus where it operates. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

material restored

A large amount of well-sourced material was removed, without discussion, as either POV or not sourced to a RS. The claim that the material is not NPOV is made without any basis, and David Dean Shulman writing in the New York Review of Books blog is a fine source, both because he has been published by high quality academic presses and because the NYR is by itself a reliable source. I've restored the material, though I kept some of the changes. nableezy - 16:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian Susya??? WP:IRRELEVANT

This article is about the Jewish settlement, Susya. Palestinian Susya is WP:IRRELEVANT and thus, the whole last section as well as big parts of previous section should be either deleted or moved to Palestinian Susya. Ashtul (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should therefore be called Jewish Susya? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity, Nishidani and whoever else, do you have any opposition to spliting this article into 3. Susya, Har Hebron, Susya, Hebron and Susya, Archaeological Site? Ashtul (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Not sensible in the slightest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ashtul. No one has ever thought of this as 'problematical' till you came up with the objection, which is fanciful and not policy-based. The proposal looks like futile forking, whose ostensible purpose would be to make all articles where conflicts are part of the history, Araberrein / Judenrein just so everyone could see history laundered of the uncomfortable. Neither history nor Wikipedia, as its rather woeful scribe (palsied hand or with attention-deficit disorder) works that way. P.s. stop following me around. I already have to cope with many redinked nuisance editors without extra duties on my plate. Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The only reason this came into my mind is the Carmel, Har Hebron article which became the host of Umm al-Kheir information. I can see here it was developed with both town on the page but still, this isn't forking. Each one is totally independent from the other. Not that you would care, but in hebrew there are 3 separete articles. Ashtul (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is a joke. It is 3 different sites compiled in one. The info of the archaeological site is clear but no useful info can be found on either Israeli or Palestinian Susya. Ashtul (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Blind removalism

Averysoda I have told you before that reliability is always in context. This blind removalism of Mondoweiss everywhere you see it, without checking what the sources say is becoming irritating. Furthermore, you have watered down the language of "The master plan for Susiya was denied by the Israeli Civil Administration", to "No master plan exists" without any justification. A moment's Google search would have turned up these totally WP:RS links, link1, link2 stating precisely what was written: the village did submit master plan, but it was denied by the Israeli civil administration. This sort of careless editing is unacceptable. I have now added these sources to the article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is an activists' group blog, and not reliable for facts. Period. This is Wikipedia policy on self-published sources. There is nothing irritating about its removal, on the contrary, the is something very irritating about editors who seek to introduce this unreliable , marginal , extremist source when they have at their disposable higher quality mainstream sources for the same facts. All Rows4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
All newspapers are 'activist' in the same sense, i.e., they carry numerous articles by people with very strong views, which influence even their 'factual' reportage. Mondoweiss, to repeat, in the last run-ins at RS/N has had outside input from just two people, both of whom said it may be used according to context. A e-journal with numerous journalists writing for it is not a 'blog'. Many of the articles are field reports, with accompanying videos. Take it to RS/N, because there is no clear cut verdict supporting your repeated suggestion it cannot be used.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a clear policy that differentiates mainstream newspapers form activists' self-published blogs. Don't like it? Work to change policy. until then, either edit according to policy, or go edit somewhere else. All Rows4 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wiki has forums for resolving disputes on policy, which were it clear for all cases, wouldn't require such forums. Use them, as everyone else does, especially when they contradicts your claims.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources is clear. Move on. All Rows4 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
And you don't apply it even in the form you construe it as meaning. First of all read WP:RSOPINION. You removed Amira Hass a noted journalist for a centrist newspaper on policy grounds that you then contradict by citing for historical facts (stupid:aerial photographs don't show people who live in the caves there) an unknown quantity Orly Goldklang, deputy editor of the Israeli religious nationalist newspaper Makor Rishon in an op-ed for an online tabloid version of Maariv, and then Arutz Sheva, which by your own asserted criteria cannot be used. Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The material I added was also sourced to The Jewish Press- why did you remove that ? And why are you removing an NRG OpEd, by an established journalist, while advocating for inclusion of a self published activists' blog? I am ok with removing both Hass's OpEd and Goldklang's OpEd, both Arutz 7 and Mondoweiss, but I won't consent to your double standards. All Rows4 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"Israeli religious nationalist[citation needed]" @Nishidani: Once again and especially for you: these words - not curses. :) And what about the same claims to Muslim, etc. media, especially in the countries with a state religion?
Any way, you, as usually, try to "sell" your own POV as a fact. There are different opinions (not decision!) regardind A7, but I've not heard about any RS decisions about Makor Rishon at all. Pls confirm your statement. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: I am just discussing the edit in question here. Let's look at the undisputed facts here. The fact for which Mondoweiss was cited, was able to be found with Googling in 2 minutes. And Googling demonstrated exactly what the quote said, which I added. Why was this not done? And, the language was watered down with no justification whatsoever, based on no source at all, and not even mentioned in the edit summary. If one bothered to read the Mondoweiss source, you can find a UN report linked there, which states precisely this. Planning schemes submitted by the residents to the Israeli authorities, which would allow the issuance of building permits on land that they own, have been repeatedly rejected.

Ignoring all this, you engage in legalism over substance. Since I have no wish to argue over trivial matters, I consent to removal of Mondoweiss source here, because it does not add anything substantially new, which is not covered in the other sources.

If one were interested in improving Wikipedia quality, one would check the facts, and add better sources if you didn't find those sources good. Or you can add a [better source needed] tag. There are a hundred different options here.

As to the Hass op-ed, it is not used by itself, it is used together with the Chaim Levison source. Both of them make the exact same point, and it is not disputed by anyone. Reliability is always in context. Hass is a journalist for Haaretz, as well as an opinion writer. However, again avoiding argument over trivial matters, I also consent to removing the Amira Hass source, since there are already 3 other sources for this claim. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing the specific edit, I am arguing the use of inappropriate sources. If there are 3 non OpEd sources for a claim made in an OpEd, which can't be used for facts, why add that opEd? Ditto for Mondoweiss - if there are reliable sources making the same claim, why do we need a non-reliable source which can't be used for facts, for the same claim? All Rows4 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not a bartering shop. You flagrantly broke your own rules, and are now negotiating for a poor source that is borderline. Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, 'The Saga of ‘Ancient’ Palestinian Susiya –The Town That Never Was,' Jewishpress.com June 30th, 2013
This article bases its claims on statements by Yigal Dilmoni, deputy director-general of the Yesha Council, an interested party, not an authority on the area, its history or population. He represents a settler council's interests in driving out the local residents, whatever their history. By his own admission he was a friend of Yair Har-Sinai, whom he describes as 'the cold-blooded murder of my friend Yair Har Sinai in 2001. He was shot in dead in the head and the back by terrorists while, unarmed, he was tending his flock of sheep.'
I know that story well also, and it was far more complicated. The idyllic side existed, but the only academic authority I know of for the area David Dean Shulman, has another version, which he incidently relates while mentioning the shepherd's widow:

'With them (settlers) is the notorious Black Widow, the widow of Yair Har-Sinai, who terrorized the Palestinians of South Hebron until he was killed in a brawl some years ago. David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine, University of Chicago Press 2007 p.89

Shulman's book is a peer-reviewed prize winning history of recent events by a field observer and a major scholar.
Zvi Bar'el notes his criminal participation in the killing of a bound Palestinian (possibly a thief) some years earlier (Zvi Bar'el Citizens in enemy territory Haaretz 17 July 2001
So a Yesha Council functionary, whose buddy was killed in Susya, who supports the eviction of Palestinians from Susya, who has no known expertise in the subject, cannot be used for anything related to the history: he is a deeply interested partisan, whatever the source of his views.
The aerial photograph is patent nonsense for a pastoral people who lived in caves, and who were in Israeli records expelled in 1986. Their lawyers even have affidavits recording what occurred when Israelis started fencing off their land at the time.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As I see, according to other RS, Zvi Bar'el's version is already distorted, and you only expanded this distortion, writing "Bar'el notes his (Yair Har-Sinai) criminal participation in the killing". --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
?every one of your complaints here has its mirror image in the sources you are using - claims by interested parties, from marginal sources. yet you constantly use them. So we need to be consistent - either all of these marginal sources, OpEds and claims by interested parties are in, or they are all out. But there will NOT be a situation where just one side gets to present its POV from Amira Hass OpEds, Group blogs like MondoWeiss, and claims by interested parties. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If an OpEd by Hass is in, so is an OpEd by GoldKlng. If claims from interested parties like the Palestinians who say they were displaced are presented, then counter-claims by people like Dilmoni will be presented. And if group blogs like Mondoweiss usable in the article, then so is a news outlet like Arutz 7. Double standards will not fly here.. All Rows4 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I gave reasoned arguments. You just made a statement. It means therefore nothing.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
every one of your complaints here has its mirror image in the sources you are using - claims by interested parties, from marginal sources. yet you constantly use them. So we need to be consistent - either all of these marginal sources, OpEds and claims by interested parties are in, or they are all out. But there will NOT be a situation where just one side gets to present its POV from Amira Hass OpEds, Group blogs like MondoWeiss, and claims by interested parties. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If an OpEd by Hass is in, so is an OpEd by GoldKlng. If claims from interested parties like the Palestinians who say they were displaced are presented, then counter-claims by people like Dilmoni will be presented. And if group blogs like Mondoweiss usable in the article, then so is a news outlet like Arutz 7. Double standards will not fly here. All Rows4 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
To repeat, where in RS/N is Mondoweiss said never to be used on Wikipedia, under any circumstances? For the third time.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"To repeat": what about any RS decision about Makor Rishon? ):) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: Your edit is very WP:POINTy and disruptive. In no way can an op-ed from a journalist in the newspaper that she works in, and where she reports on a regular basis, and which is supported by numerous other sources, be compared to the op-ed by a random person, with no corroboration, and in fact, contradicted by the sources already present in the article.

As mentioned many times before: reliability is contextual. You cannot arbitrarily add an op-ed by "one side" and op-ed by the "other side". NPOV does not mean false balance. The correct way to handle the dispute would be to discuss the reliability of the Hass piece, for instance, on WP:RSN or the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? GoldKlang in not "a random person", she is a journalist, and not just a journalist, but deputy editor of the Israeli daily newspaper Makor Rishon, of which NRG is the on-line edition. This situation is an exact parallel to the Hass case which you describe as "an op-ed from a journalist in the newspaper that she works in, and where she reports on a regular basis,". Hass, in case you don't know, was previously found guilty of libel against that same settler community she is riling against in the that OpEd. I'd have a bit more respect for your position if you also advocated that Nishidani restore the Goldklang OpEd (which was supported by multiple other reliable sources, like the Jewish Press) and then discuss the reliability of the piece, for instance, on WP:RSN or the talk page. But as you are not doing that, I must conclude you are not driven by a desire to adhere to Wikipedia policy,mbut simple one-sided POV-pushing. All Rows4 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You only read half of what I write, don't you? You managed to ignore that my position is that I am happy to remove the Hass source from the article because there are other sources. You totally ignored all my points about corroboration. And you totally ignored my point of not making a WP:POINT. Totally ignored my point of not engaging in false balance, just because there is an "op-ed from one side", add an "op-ed from another side". It's hard to argue sensibly like this. As I said above, since I have no wish to argue over trivial legalistic matters, I am removing the Hass and Mondoweiss sources from the article, because there are already 3 other sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I read all your argument, and responded to it. Earlier, I pointed out to you that I am not discussing any edit, in particular , but rather the general sourcing used for this article. My point was, and is, that if reliable sources exist for claims made by non-reliable sources, there no need to feature those non-RS in the article. Nishidani is not of the same opinion, and contrary to Wikipedia policy, keeps adding material sourced to such sources into the article (with no admonition from you). In response to his latest such action, I told him this is unacceptable, and that if the article is going to include OpEds, they can be OpEds of both sides. There is no WP:POINTyness here - the article as it currently stands is seriously unbalanced, presenting the claims of only one side. It needs to present both sides, and will do so, the only question is which sources will be used. I would be happier if no side used OpEds or blogs, but if this position is overridden, then both sides will use OpEds and blogs - and that was my point in my previous response to you - that the Goldklang OpEd in NRG is an exact parallel to the Hass OpEd in Haaretz - I am not adding it as 'tit-for-tat', I am adding it because it presents an under-represented POV, and is a source of the same quality that you (or Nishidani) are apparently happy to have in the artcile when it is form "the other side' All Rows4 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
For the fourth time. Where is it written that Mondoweiss cannot be used? No editor is an oracle on this, and when disputes on policy interpretation arise the normal practice is to ask RS/N, as I have consistently done. (I agree with Kingsindian's compromise, but that does not entail agreeing to the practice of excluding Mondoweiss from article) Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
To clarify to Nishidani and others, I did not mean to set some "precedent" about the use of Mondoweiss or op-eds. I of course meant it as a compromise about a peripheral matter.
To All Rows4, I do not operate on the basis of "one side" or the "other side", though I of course have my own POV. "Both sides" are not of equal validity everywhere. I repeat, the Hass op-ed was used on this matter, because it was corroborated with other sources, and nobody disputes it, and Hass is a journalist for Haaretz as well as an opinion writer. You simply zeroed in on the last point, while ignoring the others. The NRG op-ed you used is not corroborated by anything (I do not accept a report in a newspaper quoting a settler's council representative about historical matters as any sort of corroboration), and was in contradiction to the sources already present in the article. There is no equivalence here. If you wish to add that material, make an argument on its own merits.
More importantly, I am not interested in legalisms. This is not a courthouse, nor a bureaucracy. Rules are useful, in that they help in discussion and consensus, nothing more. I agreed on the compromise on this issue because the article content remains the same, and removes a totally trivial irritant. I will however, not agree on the inclusion of the NRG material, unless I hear better arguments. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, your POV is quite obvious. Of course people dispute Hass' account - you just "do not accept" that position , even when it is published in a newspaper article. Unfortunately for you, that's not how Wikipedia works. Goldklang is every bit the the journalist that Hass is , and her account is corroborated by other reliable sources, some of which I will be adding to the article shortly. All Rows4 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
For the 5th time, where at RS/N has Mondoweiss been defined as unusuable. As fo

Goldklang is every bit the the journalist that Hass is

  • “Orly Goldklang” 103 google hits
  • Google book hits zero
  • International Awards (peer recognition) zero
(getting tired of seeing this on my watchlist, but the last comment is brazen enough to make me want to intervene): It's a little unfair to do a Google search that's not in the native language of the people you're looking up. If you search in Hebrew, Goldklang has 7,750 hits. I assume the point of repeatedly redlinking her is an attempt to show how non-notable she is, but she has an article on he.wiki (he:אורלי גולדקלנג). This is not a comment on whether her piece is a valid source or not. Number 57 14:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course, you see nothing wrong in any one else's comments? I actually checked around to look at some of her opinions. A typical example of extremist hysteria-stoking and abuse of the usual analogy:'If Iran is allowed to enrich Uranium, even without making bombs of it, that is as if the world in 1939 allowed Germany to construct the facilities at Auschwitz without as yet placing the Jews inside the gas chambers”.' You cannot keep playing the WP:RS card to remove notable journalists, and then try to dump unknown provincials in. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In case people have forgotten, the Amira Hass op-ed is no longer cited. The compromise was meant to undercut the basis for precisely this kind of useless discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Top of not-NPOV

I've received '500 Internal Server Error' checking the following ref: Applied Research Institute Jerusalem, (ARIJ), 18 September, 1999. So I tried to begin from http://www.poica.org and did reach something as "Monitoring Israeli Colonization (sic! --Igorp_lj (talk)) Activities in the Palestinian Territories":

  • About The Project
    • Monitoring Israeli Colonizing (sic! --Igorp_lj (talk)) activities in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza is a joint project between the Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem (ARIJ) and the Land Research Center (LRC).

Can someone explain me why should we regard such sources as RS?

Or such NPOV (?) source as "Ta'ayush, Aggressive Zionist body wins court order to demolish Palestinian village, at Jews for Justice for Palestinians" (Jews for Justice for Palestinians) and other such ones.

I do not remember when & where Nishidani praised himself as Susya author what should prove his NPOV. :(
IMHO, it's opposite: it's example of not-NPOV.

The sad thing is that same editors do their best to exclude from any article almost any Jewish / Israeli source what differs from Hass, etc. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

++

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Susya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

This page is constantly having sourced information removed without any explanation. Al™ 04:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion above about material inserted and deleted. Please be more clear about what sourced information you are referring to and why you think no explanation has been provided. Zerotalk 05:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
As min, Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem (ARIJ), Jews for Justice for Palestinians & Ta'ayush mentioned in "Top of not-NPOV" above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
There is really is no point in attempting to make page related to this conflict neutral. It's impossible due to one party editing everything to fit one agenda.. Al™ 00:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Call for deletion

This entire page is a lie; it should be deleted; we have 19th century records showing that this village did not exist then and pictures from the 1990s of this area also showing there was no village; this article is political propaganda and never should have been written.

https://books.google.com/books?id=MIUKXuBj5pkC&dq=susieh+palestine&source=gbs_navlinks_s

I think it has a little bit more credibility then an active political organization that has no sources (sources used by wikipedia are supposed to be non-partisan right?)

You think the people who edit this page care about truth? How naive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.216.93 (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Mobile page

On my iPhone wiki app, the page has a title that reads, "Palestinian village, occupied by Israelian colonists". This seems very unbalanced but I can't figure out when can I change it. Any idea? Settleman (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the WikiData data. See: www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q248002. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Split?

Brand new user User:Settleman have split this article into 3; I cannot see there was ever a consensus for such a drastic move? I´m removing this, pending further discussion, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote on my talk page, the article is completely unreadable the way it is right now. The archaeological site section is OK but the rest seems like a jungle of events and opinions which makes it very hard to read and understand. In the 'Modern Era' part it goes back and forth between the settlement and the village which isn't comprehensible. It makes complete sense to make 3 articles (the way it is on Hebrew wikipedia) and the way it is done on many other towns like nearby Carmel, Har Hebron, al-Karmil and Carmel (biblical settlement). I think the articles on settlement and archaeological site are readable while the village one require more work maybe creating sections for the different expulsions which will demand much English fluency. Settleman (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
What you did; unilaterally splitting, and then running around on a lot of different articles making links to your new articles: that is extremely disruptive, and will end you at WP:AE in no time. I´m undoing it, while we discuss it, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it was a mistake, but instead of working hard now undoing this and then redoing it again, why won't you explain whether you agree or not, and if not, why? Settleman (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the split is a good idea. I also think threatening someone who has done nothing more than apply WP:BEBOLD with AE is an extremely unhelpful attitude. Number 57 12:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Splits, esp. by people previously banned from I/P editing are not acceptable. One could even put a name to this one. And how do you split an article when the geographical coordinates for the Palestinian village and the khirbet Susiya imbricate perfectly, at least until some years ago. They used part of the khirbet as a mosque until driven off.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Splits are clearly acceptable given the Carmel/Carmel/al-Karmil example cited, and the numerous examples we have of separate articles for depopulated Arab villages and the modern Israeli localities established in their place. Number 57 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
To repeat: How do you split an article when the synagogue/mosque site was the hearth of the Susiya Palestinian community for a hundred and fifty years?. Carmel/Carmel/al-Karmil are complete messes because we don't know whether in fact one of those karmels was our Susiya. I didn't agree with the previous split, which was stupidly motivated by Ashtul, and I don't agree with this proposal by a newbie who has an almost identical voice. All one obtained was hiving off into reciprocal invisibility two overlapping continguous realities, so readers are not disturbed by the complexities of an interwoven history. All of those article will remain stubs, because there's nothing to do with them. This at least has the benefit of a historical articles embracing the vicissitudes of one site. lastly, since it has emerged as a strong possibility that all of these Susiyas are on the one ottoman title, any move until this is clarified is premature. We should not be imitating the apartheid practices of the military administration by discursive mirroring.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not Ashtul or any other previous editor!!! Whatever grudges someone has with him, keep it for him.
The settlement Susya is in a whole different location and only named after the archaeological site. Mitzpe Yair, an outpost of Susya, has its own article but the main settlement shouldn't?
As for the archaeological site and khirbet, Nishidani wrote "those article will remain stubs" but they will both not considered stub at 19K and 34k, a respectful size! Yes another example of where it is done Katzrin and Katzrin ancient village and synagogue. Settleman (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Huldra. Aren't you the forerunner of creating duplicate articles of Israeli geographic entities using the Arab name of a depopulated village? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pot, kettle, indeed. The difference here is that the history of the three places here seem very intervened, while at Zakariyya it was a clear break. Huldra (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The settlement is as different from the archaeological site as any of the numerous examples above.
For the Palestinian village, I can see the connection though Susya existed for almost 2000 years then possibly used seasonally for 150 years. The fight now is over land that is not the original site (even if nearby). This episode completely take over the article which seems disproportionate and unhelpful. Settleman (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Translate

this source (Havakook>{{cite book|last1=Yaakov|first1=Havakook|title=Live in Caves of Mount Hebron|date=1985|page=26|url=https://books.google.co.il/books/about/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A8_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F.html?id=OaELAAAAIAAJ) has to be verified by translating the relative passage on p.26. The editor who added it should provide the precise Hebrew sentence and an English version to allow third parties to see if it supports the statement made or is, as it appears to be, a WP:OR weaving into the text of that source.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the book but basically translated from Hebrew wikipedia #2 where the source is cited. Havakook is probably the one source for anyone writing about recent history. Obviously B'tselem and RHR prefer to not highlight the seasonality of the place. Settleman (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Settleman: Since you are a new editor, I would ask you to keep in mind WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. I will keep this in for now, because the B'Tselem source does say "seasonally", but this should be verified by someone who has read the book. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't do copying from other Wikipedia articles or other wikipedias blindly. In every page under construction, one must endeavor to verify independently the sources. There is no indication whether the source is RS, for example. The link draws a blank. The information may well be useful, but unless independently examined to verify the quality of the source and the accuracy of the way it is cited, it should be removed. As to seasonality, that is question-begging. Because transhumance pastoralism all over the world involves season transfers from one site (the Arad here) to another (Susya), and stable living in both quarters in the due seasons. It does not imply, nor do the cave dwellings, impermanence. The way the source is harvested suggests that there is something contingent and ephemeral in such pastoral practices, which happens to be contrafactual, esp. if the Susya area farmers actually purchased Ottoman title to it in 1880, which appears to be the case.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have found a tangential reference to this here (pg 13). The spelling "Havakook" is different, but I think it is the same source. It states: "It should be noted that the state, in giving its reasons, relied on the research of Ya’akov Habakkuk, who found that at least some of the villages of the area are permanent communities". This should be clarified at the very least. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see below. Settleman (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

French translation

Can someone please translate this for the "Ottoman era" section. Settleman (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing there for the Ottoman period. He sees a church with three absides facing east, caverns and cisterns, and indulges in some philological speculations over the name. That's all.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This source is very relevant to the archaeological site and is used in different villages in the area such as al-Karmil (#15) and Beit 'Amra (#3).
This article is (currently) about both types so it is relevant. Settleman (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman era - 19th century sources

@Settleman: I see two sources used, both were published in the 19th century? The general consensus here is that such sources are not reliable. See the essay (it's not a policy, but offers useful guidelines) WP:HISTRS). This is the same reason that for instance, British colonial sources are not used for articles on India. Recent scholarship should be used, which interprets such old sources. Also, I am not sure what exactly those sources are supposed to prove. I have for the moment removed them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I didn't look at the details of this example, but in general I only partly agree with you. 19th century, or even earlier, writers are usually considered reliable for their personal observations. That's especially true for the scholarly writers of the 19th century such as Robinson, SWP and Guérin. We can quote what they saw at a place, and do so in very many articles. On the other hand, their hypotheses about a place that are not a simple matter of observation are not treated as reliable, such as their guesses regarding the ancient name of a site. But even those can be mentioned as attributed opinions if they are interesting, to be contrasted with the findings of modern scholars. Zerotalk 00:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: You might have a point, I do not know about these sources in detail to say anything definite. Generally, my feeling is that these sources should be used with caution, because they are first-hand accounts, and use of WP:PRIMARY sources is discouraged in historical matters, if only because many primary sources are fragmentary, contradictory and so on. These are matters on which trained historians are better suited to judge the reliability and relevance, rather than WP editors. On this topic, there is so much propaganda and myths, that I tend to treat such sources with extreme caution. Anyway, as I mentioned in my earlier edit, it is not clear to me what these sources are supposed to show here, or why they are important. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources are definitely usable. My point that two 'Ottoman' sources saying what was known for a millennium, that as khirbet implies, it was a ruin, don't throw much light on the issue at hand, the population's history. I wrote up the ruin's history in great detail, and what struck me as noteworthy is that travelers passing through never mention people there: that was not what they were looking for, much like modern archaeologists. Aside from the fact that I'm feeling extremely lazy.Nishidani (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I have self-reverted for now, because people more knowledgeable than me think otherwise. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Images

Wikimedia commons has an excellent array of photos, a photo gallery should be added - to this page or, better, to a separate page about the ancient town and synagogue. It is a remarkable physical array of surviving structures for a town of that antiquity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Odd sentence

I removed this odd sentence : "No excavations have uncovered undisputed evidence for synagogues before the 2nd century CE in Judea, when Rabbinic Judaism became ascendant due to the destruction of the Second Temple." for two reasons. It ignores the synagouge at Herodium. a\And it does not really seem to serve any purpose in this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • User:Nishdani let's rethingk the sentence you just replaced. It makes the sweeping statement that "No excavations have uncovered undisputed evidence for synagogues before the 2nd century CE in Judea" when, in fact, there is just such a one in Herodium in Judea. The sentence as you left it should be changed to reflect that reality. Perhaps the dig post-dates the source you cited?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(a)It's in the source (b) the key word is 'undisputed'. I don't know the truth. I transcribe sources. Given your reservation, the obvious nsolution, to avoid your WP:OR temptation, is simply to add attribution. The whole point of that introductory note is to emphasis the post-classical, yet uniquely conservative (Jerusalem-usage reflective) character of the late Judean tradition.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The sentence in question is not footnoted. Mentioning the pre-year 70 synagogue at Herodion in Judea is hardly original research. Kindly stick to verifiable facts rather than unsources assertions like "undisputed" and, if you insist on replacing a prima facie untrue assertion (such as the absence of synagogues in this region in that period) , at least cite it to a specific source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The footnote is in the succeeding sentence. On Wikipedia, if you wish to contradict a scholarly source re A, you need a scholarly source mentioning A and controverting it.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Which of the citations are you referring to? To support a statement that is sweeping, specific, (and incorrect).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Split again

Settleman Whoa, wait a second. There is no consensus to split this article yet. I have reverted this right now. Actually policy is unclear. I asked about this here on Sandstein's page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A no consensus to delete is effectively the same as a keep result, as it maintains the status quo. The main difference is that a second discussion on the articles would be accepted sooner than that which had resulted in a keep result. Number 57 08:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: The key question is "what is the status quo"? Is the status quo "one article discussing all 3 sites", or is the status quo "the spinoff articles should not be deleted", as usually happens in AfDs? Because it can be only one or the other. Either the spinoff articles should be deleted, or this one should be made a disamb/redirect, and I don't see consensus for either one. I have opened a discussion here about this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There was no consensus to delete the spinoff articles, therefore they remain in existence. Number 57 09:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: Thank you for telling me that, but I already said this above. What should be the scope of this article, then? Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
As the two articles that were up for discussion were the settlement and Palestinian village, that would leave this one as the archaeological site. Number 57 09:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: I am afraid that is totally unacceptable. That would essentially endorse the split, for which no consensus (indeed no discussion) exists. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Unacceptable to you, but perfectly acceptable to some other editors. Number 57 16:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: Sorry if I was not clear, but I was not asking for editors' opinions, I was asking for policy clarification (since you are an admin as well, I thought you might enlighten me). It is obvious to me that policy can't require something like this, which implements a non-existent discussion and consensus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Some editors want a nice clean archaeological page so that googlers visiting the area don't have to read about the dispossessions, but can enjoy this Jewish site. That's the only visible reason for hacking the article into three pieces. Creating a comfort zone for tourists.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Um, Nish, the thing is, Wikipedia separates archaeological sites the world over in just this way, for efficiency and user friendliness, I assume. I mean, when you want to link through and read about Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium you don't want to have to go through an article on modern or 19th century Cologne. Individual ancient houses of worship are treated the same way. It would make no sense to propose to fold Burqin Church into the article on Burqin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not only an archaeological site. It is one of continuous use and habitation by the wrong ethnos, who now, as opposed to the practice of centuries, can't put foot there, though it appears they may well have title to the land (this should be shortly clarified when the court rules on Moshe Meiri's work, if it does).The Cologne analogy misses the peculiarities here. Cologne celebrates the differential culture of a persecuted minority, and lays out its presence in the heart of a German city, and the groundwork is massive. This is one small but distinctive synagogue/mosque ruin which has been transformed by the governing power into a monument of the Jewish past exclusive of its Muslim past and its Muslim presence in modern times. The Israeli courts have just ruled that Palestinians must be accorded a right to the ruins of Shilo, from which they have hitherto been excluded. Since, as numerous Israeli monographs document in great detail the progressive destruction of Palestinian/Muslim attachments to the land, and this is an informal but persistent policy governing sites like Susiya, Wikipedia should be sensitive, as should comprehensive editors, to any mimcry of the same process, aiming to strictly separate the multicultural realities of a site by forking to maintain an image of 'Jews'(Susiya), 'Arabs' (Susiya). Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Then why do we have so many separate articles on depopulated Arab villages that have been built over by modern Israeli localities? The insistence on a single article here seems to be rank hypocrisy on the face of what exists elsewhere in this topic area. Furthermore, unless there is some bizarre quantum phenomenon that I am unaware of, the Palestinian village and the Israeli settlement cannot occupy exactly the same physical location, and therefore are separate places with a shared name. And even if they were adjoining places, they are still separate administrative areas - the settlement has its own municipal borders, which are clearly visible on Google Maps and do not include the Palestinian village. The idea that the split is somehow an attempt to deny the dispossessions is really quite silly (especially given the aforementioned separate articles on depopulated villages); if Susya were to become an article only about the archaeological site, it will have a hatnote at the top of the page that clearly mentions the alternative articles on the Palestinian village and the settlement. Hardly hiding the dispossession issue.
But anyway, I think what we need is some outside views from unbiased editors and hopefully an RfC will do this. If it comes to it, I could live with a combined article on the archaeological site and the modern Palestinian village (as they are in the same physical location), but the settlement is quite clearly not in the same location (as anyone can see from the maps). Number 57 16:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
'Then why do we have so many separate articles on depopulated Arab villages that have been built over by modern Israeli localities?' Because these depopulated villages are in Israel, and are mainly the concern of Israeli editors anyway. I don't touch that. I'm interested in villages in the West Bank, which, you should remind yourself, is not in Israel and per NPOV has to deal with two ethnic realities, and not try to extend the Israeli precedent for its own past on contemporary history. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Why should I remind myself that this is not in Israel? I'm fully aware it's not in Israel. If you had any idea about the history of editing in this topic area, you would know that I was one of the editors who was instrumental in getting rid of the "in Israel" classification for Israeli settlements that pro-Israel POV pushers insisted on using in the early days of Wikipedia (and copped rather a lot of flak for it at the time, including disruption of my RfA by a bloc of the aforementioned editors). I do not need any lessons in NPOV from yourself. As for depopulated Arab villages being "mainly the concern of Israeli editors", I suggest you also get yourself up to speed on who is creating/editing those as well. Number 57 04:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the article in an hostile environment. No complaints, absolute silence, as I did the hard yakka of writing the synagogue history. As soon as I touched on the Palestinian presence I was subject to a three (four if you count the usual sockpuppet)-pronged revert battle on the most spurious of issues. Since then 2008, the article has had 7 years of stability. All of a sudden, note the coincidence with the High Court decision to demolish the last traces of Palestinian Susiya, editors are activated to try and rid the article itself of its Palestinian history. Coincidence? Sure, yeah, pull the other one. The only rationale for splitting a comprehensive multifaceted article on this one site into three is to make the Palestinian history of attachment to the ex-synagogue/mosque invisible, make them disappear from the site, and have a nice comfortable article about our Israeli heritage Sysia, free of them. It's ethnic cleansing applied to articles.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: I won't go into the details too much here, but in fact there is no need for "quantum phenomena". The reason is simple, as this UN factsheet details, and I mentioned at the AfD as well. The Israeli settlement's borders are actually 5 times bigger than the actual built up area, which intersects, encroaches upon and denies land to the Palestinian area. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact remains that they cannot exist in exactly the same place. Plus, even in cases where we have contiguous urban areas administered by two separate political entities, we have split articles (e.g. Nicosia/North Nicosia. Number 57 04:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge mess. As Wikipedia:Splitting says, in case of contested or controversial splits, discussion should have been carried out before the split. I have asked on the AfD page about relevant policy, depending on the replies, I will open a formal RfC here in a few days to decide whether this article should be split. After that is concluded, hopefully the status and scope of the articles will be clear. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishdani, the Romans were not a "persecuted minority" at Cologne, they founded, owned, ruled the place. And it should not be necessary to point out that ethnic change is hardly unique to Susiya. In Burqui, for example, the Christians were the dominant group before they became a persecuted minority. My point, however, is that the separation of significant archaeological sites is normative on Wikipedia, subsuming the Burqin Church under a small town like Burquin would make little sense, which is why it is usual to separate significant archaeological sites both from major cities like Cologne, and from a rural hamlet like Susya.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct in writing that 'the Romans were not as ' persecuted minority'. You are absolutely off-the-planet in making this a remonstrative argument against me, since I referred in that phrase to Jews, not to Romans:'Cologne celebrates the differential culture of a persecuted minority' (meaning, if I have to construe further, that the German city of Cologne celebrates by its contemporary excavations the historical roots of a Jewish minority Germans once persecuted. Got that?Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is normative in Wikipedia based on one or two instances. Articles are worked by consensus.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

How about moving this article to something like Susya archaeological site and making Susya a redirect for all 3 articles? This will make it very easy to find Khirbet Susya as well. One thing we can all agree about, the article as it is, doesn't help a reader understand the situation and the legal complexity. Settleman (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that "we can all agree about...". In fact, I think a single article is essential to help the reader understand the complexities involved. However, I will leave detailed arguments to the RfC if and when that happens. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You don't agree the article right now is terrible? there is no structure to it. It doesn't mean it should be splitted but for a long article which got over 400 edits it is by far the worse I've ever seen on wikipedia. Settleman (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
These are just considerations of dislike, and have no objective merit.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nishdani, you wrote: "Cologne celebrates the differential culture of a persecuted minority, and lays out its presence in the heart of a German city, and the groundwork is massive." You seem to see every group as a "persecuted minority." Even the Romans. The Cologne example is simply not what you describe it as being. But while I am giving these two examples, my point is that across Wikipedia it is entirely routine to have separate pages for significant archaeological sites. I am simply suggesting that we treat this archaeological site exactly as we would treat any other archaeological site in the world about which there are significant sources to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I wrote what I wrote and you misread it. Susiya is (a)an archaeological site of Jewish and Moslem interest (b) an historic hamlet from which (I) Israel destroyed part of the history by destroying the contiguous cave dwellings and (2) dumping its inhabitants far away and then (3) stealing against its own documentary records land that on two occasions experts said is under Palestinian title. You chaps think that we need an article on the synagogue shorn of any mention of this Palestinian history. Your only argument is a theoretical wiki practice. Well, I live in the richest archaeological country in the world, and nearly all articles on Italy have the town and its history and the archaeological remains described in the one article. There is nothing to make the Jewish Susiya more than a stub. Had I not taken the trouble to write the synagogue article we wouldn't be having this argument. Be grateful it's there, and don't resent the fact that for comprehensiveness there is also the history of Israeli attempts to destroy the Muslim realities attached to it. They are part of the one story. Were there no synagogue there would be no illegal attempts to expel the local pastoral folks.Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nishdani, you really should try to check your impulse to make sweeping statements before doing the research, such as, "nearly all articles on Italy have the town and its history and the archaeological remains described in the one article." You misunderstood or misstated. In fact, WP is filled with separate articles about individual old and notable churches, synagogues and temples, such as Temple of Bellona (Rome). Look at enormous number of articles in the WP categories: (Temples in Italy), (Places of worship in Italy), (Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Italy). Category:Temples in Italy, Category:Places of worship in Italy, This applies, of course, not exclusively to houses of worship, but to ancient sites of all kinds, which routinely get their own pages, see Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Italy. An argument against separate articles is an argument that this synagogue be treated differently than archaeological sites and old, notable temples, churches and synagogues in Italy (and elsewhere) are treated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that participants save their metaphorical breath for the RfC if and when that happens? This discussion is pointless, because it will solve nothing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, my point of view is to have :
  • A disambiguation page: Susya directing to 3 articles (in chronological order):
    • Susya archeological site
    • Khirbet Susya
    • Susya Israeli Settlement
I can argue during the RfC, if any. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur with Pluto. And said so in the previous AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, you are right about me getting to the article after reading about the High Court decision but nobody is trying to "ethnic cleanse" the article. The way I proposed it, Khirbet Susya was at the top and in Modern era section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please integrate new material with what we have when the topic is identical

A mosque was built atop the courtyard of the former synagogue. It featured a mihrab in the southern wall, a second mihrab between two columns in the southern portico, and "crude" stone benches along the walls. Magness, assessing the evidence uncovered by the several archaeologists who dug at the site which includes an inscription, dates the mosque to the reign of Caliph Al-Walid I, in the early eighth century.

This edit is misplaced, though invaluab le, E M Gregory. The text already supplies details of the mosque further up the paragraph, and the addition should have been integrated into that text, which runs:-

The abandoned synagogue, or its atrium or courtyard, was converted into a mosque around the 10th century.[15] A niche on the northern wall used as a mihrab/mahrab dates to Saladin's time,[46] according to local tradition.[47] In the 12th–13th centuries Crusaders garrisoned at nearby Chermala and Eshtemoa, and, in their wake, a few families, moved into the ruins to exploit the rich agricultural land.[14]Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Seasonally" in the lead

A B'Tselem source is being used to insert the word "seasonally" in the lead. Here is a much better B'Tselem source which discusses the "seasonal" claims in detail. It does not support this, and in fact argues against it (pg 18-20). Consequently, I have removed this from the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The report you qoute state specifically "This report does not deal with the village Suseya, which lies outside the closed area. Israel is also trying to expel its residents, but it is a separate case."
If you understand Hebrew I will recommend watching this recent event at Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. Settleman (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever it says, it is not wp:rs. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why it was removed again. B'tselem source say Susya was seasonal and the other B'tselem source says "This report isn't about Susya. I should be this week in Jerusalem and have a chance to go to library. Settleman (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Where is the specific text stating that Susyans were seasonal since 1832? If the dots are connected, fine. If they are not, it is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Settleman: You are correct in your statement above, my new source is talking generally about cave dwellers in this area. There is lot of confusion here. See for example here - Currently about 250 people live in Khirbet Susiya on a regular basis, and some 100 others live in it for part of the year, as their livelihood is seasonal. This point is quite important so I would like an unambiguous source here. The way I read it, the other B'Tselem source is simply saying that they were living uninterruptedly since 1830s on a seasonal basis. If and when some of them became permanent residents, is not stated. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Kingsindian: I have read the book by Yaakov Havakook in the library today. He specify Khirbet Susya as a seasonal location. He lived in the area continuously between 77 and 79 then visited a few more times until 84 and the book was published in 85. I took a photo so I can give an exact translation. There is more evidence to support this and evidence that suggest otherwise is a document by Plia Albeck (though she may have visited during the season) but i'll wait with it until the pages deletion discussion is over so we can write it in an objective way.
The fact the village was (very likely) seasonal doesn't mean that it should be demolished. Some argue it should still be protected under int'l treaties and the land ownership is another issue that need to be addressed in the article. What I'm trying to say is - right now the article doesn't explain any of this. It is a mess of incoherent information on a subject that is both complex and explosive. Settleman (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Israeli reports reflect archaeological, not human interests. We have source bias, plus source inadequacy, and the article simple reflects these inadequacies. That transhumance cultures are 'seasonal' says nothing much other than noting tribes engaged in them had two destinations depending on the period, for sowing crops and grazing flocks. That in Israel and under the occupation seasonality disinvalidates claims to land is a convenient political story to allow people from Brooklyn or Moldavia with no historic connections to the area to seize native rezources under the protection of guns wielded by an occupier power which ignores the obligations of ninternational and humanitarian law, that forms part of the picture, complicated by recent evidence that title to land exists in Susya some 700 acres, dating to Ottoman times. This will be clarified (partially) at the next sittings of the court.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yaakov Havakook book "life in Mount Hebron caves" is about the life of the locals, not archaeology. Half of the book is about his experience with the villagers. His book is used in reports which support the Palestinian position as Kingsindian showed.
The position you present is Rabbies for Human Rights position and is one side of the coin. The other one is the Israel government and its high court ruling. I checked again, and the address of this website is wikipedia.com and it is an encyclopedia. You can keep your comments about "people from Brooklyn or Moldavia with no historic connections to the area" to yourself. Settleman (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Nope. The other side of the story is international law governing the law of occupation, which is what the Israeli government, the IDF and Israeli's legal system consistently ignores.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Settleman Can you translate what exactly Havakook says about Khirbet Susiya? By the way, the B'Tselem report I linked to does not cite Havakook, it simply says that the Israeli govt. has cited Havakook to argue this "seasonal" claim in court. Since the B'Tselem source argues against "seasonal" generally, but it is not dealing with Susiya in that report, I am a bit uneasy about using it here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the quote.
The fate and rule (לחם חוקם) for shepherds' they have to migrate with their herds following the grass and water... The large amount of natural caves met the requirements of the shepherds: they provided pretection from the cold, rain, wind and other natural elements... Whoever travel in South Mount Hebron even today, when this book is written, in early 1984, in Khirbats like... Khirbet Susya (landmark 159090) and the alike will discover, the every year, during grazing time, regular fixed families of shepherds visit the caves in these ruins, as every shepherd family returns and live in the same cave in which it lived in the prior season. Grazing season - it is important to clarify - is parallel to the winter season, and usually starts in October-November, with the first rain, and continue until April end and beginning of May. At the end of the winter once again the families abandon the caves which they used during the grazing months, and uproot to the main village or other grazing areas, more promising. Settleman (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
That's useful, at last. Probably we need the Hebrew text, and a more precise translation at this point. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I put it in Khirbet Susya a few days ago but two sources has the same name and it didn't appear. Settleman (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You can page 56 here.Settleman (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani Can you direct me to the source that specify 1832. Khirbet Susya does appear in anything I can find prior to Havakook. Non of the british censuses (22,31,45) has it and political NGOs such as B'tselem or RHR are questionable for such facts. RHR for example claim the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917 which is obviously bogus because such much could (and mostly likely does) refer to the ruins. Havakook in his book writes that Khirbeh refers to seasonal location while Kariyeh refers to a permanent village. He also writes that the status might change over time and indeed he writes that Khirbet At-Tuwani is permanent village. The book was published in 1985. Settleman (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Written records of the existence of a Palestinian community in its location exist from as far back as 1830, and the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917. Susya: A History of Loss, Rabbis for Human Rights 07 November 2013
It's rather remarkable to have to argue that people who have lived for centuries in a locality have a link or title to a land which is being cleansed by foreigners with no link to the land for millennia, if at all, on the assumption that a non-existent God was a real-estate tycoon dispensing favours to non-historical figures like Moses and Joseph whose fairy6 tales have more legal merit than modern bills of sale. It's not the Susiyans who need documents to justify their presence but the gun-touting carpetbaggers and thugs elbowing them out.,.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see the source I have just added. RHR claim they have lived there for generations but don't provide any evidence. Meanwhile, 3 travellers (who mentions inhabitation of places) say nothing about people in Susya, British census doesn't even mention it and the only researcher who studied the area deeply say it was used temporarily 2 years before the initial eviction. Regavim is a side in the legal process currently taking place so they are as reliable as RHR. Settleman (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Just found an article on al-monitor which says "Israeli anthropologist Yaakov Havacook dates their presence in Susiya back to the beginning of the 19th century". This 1830 is completely bogus and should not be on Wikipedia. Settleman (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You are POV pushing on a mighty scale against sources. You have no right as an editor to make personal judgements about claims being 'bogus'. The source you asked for says:

The Palestinian village of Susya has existed for hundreds of years, long predating the Jewish Israeli settlement of Susya, which was founded in its neighborhood in 1983. Written records of the existence of a Palestinian community in its location exist from as far back as 1830, and the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917.

Your crap about no mentions in 3 traveler accounts of inhabitants is both an argumentum ex silentio, and a demonstration of your unfamiliarity with 19th century Muiddle eastern travelogues. Western travellers looked for antiquities, not people, giving rise to the kind of nonsense that Palestine was empty. They aòlso travelled seasonally mostly in summer, through areas where transhumance pastoralism was practiced in winter. There are very detailed multivolumed Arabic histories of Hebron and its Hills going back centuries: none of them are ever harvested in Western source4s except in obscure monographs etc.etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
1830 was sort-of near the beginning of the 19th century, to the accuracy typical of newspapers. I don't think that article adds or subtracts anything. Zerotalk 09:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Henry Baker Tristram was there in February and he does mention the page before that Semua was inhabited. so both your claims are wrong. 'Settlers organ' Arutz 7 contacted the different organizations asking for the historical documents they base their claims on but no one could provide any such evidence. As I mention, Al-monitor claims Havakook is the source but I read the book and he doesn't say that. Settleman (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this, too many sections on this talk page to keep track of. The al-Monitor source saying "beginning of the 19th century" seems consistent with 1830, doesn't it? 1830 is in the 19th century. I don't see why that article is relevant. As a general matter, I do not oppose including "seasonally" in the lead, correctly attributed to Havakook, as long as there is no implication that the village didn't exist prior to 1986. This bit about censuses and so on, is WP:OR from WP:PRIMARY sources, and not admissible. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Examine this

According to others, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986. Travelers from the late 19th century report finding ruins (while nearby Semua is reported as inhabited), British census from 1945 doesn't mention Susya and a reseacher, Yaakov Havakook who stuied the area between 1977-1982 writes Khirbet Susya was used seasonally during the grazing months for the winter and abandoned again in the summer.[1]

  1. ^ "Susya: The Palestinian lie - the village that didn't exist" (PDF). Regavim. Retrieved 14 August 2015.

Nearly everything here is editorializing. Regavim is not RS Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The only sentence I might change is 1986 -> 1984. All the rest appears in Regavim document. As for it being RS, please see next discussion. Settleman (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • According to others, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986
They were evicted in 1986 from the archaeological are, and reconstituted their township a few dozen metres off. It is sleight-of-hand to define Susya now as built in 1986 when it was rebuilt after a prior eviction. If they were evicted in 1986 they must have been there before hand - this is obvious to anyone.
The rest is original research and synthesis, making deductions from the absence of evidence. Cave-dwelling communities don't show up in aerial maps; transhumance pastoralists maintain dual residencies, based on seasons; foreign travelers came through in the summer, precisely after the winter-sown crop had been gathered in, and pastoral work kept men in the hills (not 'abandoned'). We simply lack so far detailed information on the caves, which, now that Israel has destroyed many of them, comes from the occupying power's destruction of significant evidence. All this ignores the simple fact, which no one is replying to, that numerous sources now attest that the Civil Administration has in its possession documents attesting the purchase of 740 acres on that site from ottoman times in Susiyan hands. Title is everything in these legal cases, residency means nothing, no more than the fact that the European elites lived in the capital in winter, and their country manors in summer. These considerations on my part in any case are as pointless as your inferences, deductions and arguments. We go by sources, and sources do not justify anything you wrote above (yet)Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Your sophisticated explanation about transhumance pastoralists should defiantly get into the article but to present them as a regular village is a lie. Settleman (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susya/Archive_1&oldid=1137213352"